THERE is a type of left-leaning Unionist for whom Scottish independence can only be seen through a cartoon-strip Jocks and Geordies lens: it is tribal, parochial, mischievous, and relies on national stereotypes.

Those who pride themselves on being “internationalists, not nationalists” have often cited solidarity with the Geordies (or Northern English in general) in making the case first against devolution and then against independence. “Why,” they say, “should we care more about an unemployed worker in Glasgow than one in Barrow?”

This is a fair question. It reminds us that the nation should not be an idol. It should never be the ultimate source of our identity or the highest limit of our loyalty. All national claims and allegiances must ultimately be subordinate to a recognition of the rights and responsibilities that derive from our common humanity.

Children in poverty in Newcastle or Liverpool really do matter just as much as those in Bathgate or Easterhouse. That is not, however, an argument against Scottish autonomy. Scottish children benefit from small, incremental, but vital advances in the battle against child poverty – such as the Pregnancy and Baby Payment, the Early Learning Payment, the School Age Payment and the Scottish Child Payment – only because of devolution and the SNP Government.

The solution is not to impose uniformity from Westminster, but for an independent England to allow its regions the powers they need to tackle their social and economic problems.

It is about power and democracy, as well as money. “Levelling up” from the centre might result in a bit of infrastructural improvement, but only as gifts bestowed by those who neither know nor care about local conditions. Real “levelling up” requires a sense of shared responsibility and renewed confidence, which depends on democratic control of resources.

Besides, why draw the line at England? The same arguments apply – perhaps with even greater force – to children in Nairobi and Karachi, but there is no one, not even the most unreconstructed nostalgic imperialist, who seriously suggests that those places should be returned to London rule.

Why is it that anti-imperialism always drowns in the Tweed?

Supporters of Scottish independence know there is no incompatibility between international solidarity and national autonomy. The idea of “Independence in Europe” is grounded in the recognition that nations should control their own destinies, but should also work together, sharing powers and resources, by consent, on a reciprocal basis, and on the principle of subsidiarity, for the pursuit of their common interests.

The United Kingdom has often presented itself, at least in the minds of traditional Scottish Unionists, as such an exercise in “pooling and sharing”. The Union, it is said, rests on consent; it exists because it is in Scotland’s national interest for it to do so. The Union does not destroy Scottish sovereignty (remember, Gordon Brown signed the Claim of Right); it merely enables Scottish sovereignty to be exercised within a wider British framework. If Scotland were to withdraw that consent – for example, by electing a pro-independence majority to its national Parliament – then the Union could be ended.

That concept of the Union is denied by today’s Tories. Douglas Ross – unlike Margaret Thatcher before him – has refused to recognise the principle of Scotland’s right to national self-determination. This approach transforms traditional Scottish Unionism into a newly virulent type of British nationalism. In a way, it is anti-Unionist: there is no “Union”, in the sense of the coming together of equals, in this picture. It is assimilation and domination.

READ MORE: Independence: British state is now unrecoverable under a tsunami of sleaze

During this election, I’ve concluded that I can no longer call myself a “Scottish nationalist”. I am a “British dissolutionist”. I want the best for every part of the United Kingdom and I see that being more readily and easily achieved by means of independent states. The Union does not work for any of us. Efforts to strengthen “Britishness” will only hasten its demise. Undermining and sidelining devolution, while blocking lawful routes to independence, will only provoke more bitterness. Let us amicably call the whole thing off.

Already the pro-independence parties in Scotland maintain fraternal links with counterparts in Wales. We should extend that hand to England too, doing all we can to help English regions find their place and voice in an independent, decentraliaed England.

There would still be a need for mechanisms of cooperation, but these would be based on agreements between sovereign states, not imposed by Westminster. What emerges might look like a British version of Benelux or the Nordic Council. Those who want to be British could still be British, in the same way as Norwegians are still Scandinavian.

Paradoxically, the only way to save “Britain” – as an idea, as an identity, as a set of institutional arrangements – may be to end the Union. For whosoever will save the Union shall lose it: and whosoever will lose the Union for independence’s sake shall find it.

Gem Donnelly is this week’s guest on the TNT show on Wednesday at 7pm